Is anyone worried about an X-FILES type bomb?

[Franklin]

This was a series with a huge Trek like following and with the ORGINAL stars and it still tanked.

True. In it's prime, the TV show drew about 1.5 times as many viewers as TNG did. Considering that, compared to the Trek movies, the first X-Files movie (1998) didn't really do all that well. INS also came out in 1998, and that "bad" Trek movie made only ("only") $13 million less in the U.S. than the X-Files movie did (most of that difference based on first two weeks take). FC (1996) made more money in the U.S. than the X-Files movie did.

The X-Files was must-see TV in its time. It just didn't go to the big screen as well as Star Trek did.

 

[Augustus]

I try my best to keep track of upcoming movies and I barely heard of x-files a month before it came out...

 

[the quickening]

This was a series with a huge Trek like following and with the ORGINAL stars and it still tanked.

True. In it's prime, the TV show drew about 1.5 times as many viewers as TNG did. Considering that, compared to the Trek movies, the first X-Files movie (1998) didn't really do all that well. INS also came out in 1998, and that "bad" Trek movie made only ("only") $13 million less in the U.S. than the X-Files movie did (most of that difference based on first two weeks take). FC (1996) made more money in the U.S. than the X-Files movie did.

The X-Files was must-see TV in its time. It just didn't go to the big screen as well as Star Trek did.

Yeah, but The X Files film made more money overall. It did much better internationally, and is one of the many reasons I am skeptical of ST Xl and it's chances to make make it's investment. TREK has never performed well in the foreign markets.

 

[the quickening]

I'm not worried, but there are interesting similarities that can be seen, especially when you also look at how MIAMI VICE and SERENITY didn't light up the box office either. Only SEX AND THE CITY beat the odds.

Seems strange that people here are picking on the quality dip of THE X FILES--and are pointing out how it may have affected the movie's performance, when the same quality dip happened to TREK as well--both on TV and the movies.

Also, if the public doesn't want to see something, doesn't matter how much you advertised it or how many cgi shots the movie has, they won't go. Could be TREK has pasted it's prime and is soon to be laid to rest. We shall see.

 

[the quickening]

The X Files' film was made for around 30 million. There's a good chance Fox will only take a small loss. The TREK films cost 160 million. If it doesn't make 2 to 3 times it's investment, it will be a mega-bomb. It might turn out Fox was a lot smarter.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

(regarding The X-Files)
The previous movie was a let down. The show then went from must-see-tv to jumped-the-shark-tv. The finale was a letdown.

Well, while I generally agree with everyone that these two films are not in the same league, I do take issue with this post, because all of these things can be said about Star Trek.

The last Trek film was an absolute unmitigated disaster - not just a 'letdown' but a disaster and an embarrassment. An embarrassment so large that Patrick Stewart spent most of his time in the months after Nemesis came out trying to put as much distance as possible between himself and that film.

On the next point, Enterprise not only jumped the shark but got canceled. It left the air in shame after 4 seasons, while The X-Files did 9 seasons.

Finally, the finale of ENT was, in the opinion of some, one of the worst episodes of any Star Trek show, ever - far worse than the last episode of The X-Files. TATV was more than a 'letdown'. It was an insulting slap in the face to large numbers of Star Trek fans, including many who had actually LIKED Enterprise for the most part.

Like I said...I don't think Trek XI and The X-Files movie are doomed to the same fate simply because they were both spun off from scifi TV shows.

But the reasons you listed here are not why. If anything, Star Trek had a bigger problem with those issues in the end than did Mulder and Scully.

 

[cardinal biggles]

Seems strange that people here are picking on the quality dip of THE X FILES--and are pointing out how it may have affected the movie's performance, when the same quality dip happened to TREK as well--both on TV and the movies.

Fair enough, with one big difference: X-Files: IWTB was directed, written, and produced by series creator Chris Carter. Star Trek is being directed, written, and produced by people who bear no responsibility for past Trek projects, whether you think good or ill of them. We as Trekkies may lump them in with Berman et. al. if the film sucks, but the film will be promoted to the general public as Trek with a blank slate, much like Batman Begins.

 

[Squiggy]

Historically, reboots have performed well haven't they? I mean, if Dark Knight can do what it's doing after Batman Forever was unleashed onto the masses anything is possible.

 

[Beyerstein]

I think the main reason the X-Files movie bombed wasn't the length of time since it'd been off the air, or lack of marketing, awareness or anything like that.

It was just a flat out really bad movie. It was dull and boring.

 

[pookha]

i dont think a lot of people will hold what happened with nemesis ect against the new movie.
each of the trek franchises are seen as seperate critters.
and the last true tos film undiscovered country went out with a high note to a lot of people.

and yeah x files movie had to deal with a lot of the baggage and irritation directed at carter over those last two years.

that a lot of people didnt trust him any more to deliever something they would enjoy.

and the ad campaigns along with the trailer were just bad.

 

[Jax]

Star Trek has major pull worldwide, which X Files can only dream of. STAR TREK XI will pull at least $100 million in North America and it should make double that with the worldwide total.

 

[Bad Bishop]

Star Trek has major pull worldwide...

Maybe.

STAR TREK XI will pull at least $100 million in North America and it should make double that with the worldwide total.

Paramount will probably downplay expectations, as you are doing.

 

[Trajet]

What exactly would be the point of Paramount greenlighting the production of a "reboot" of Star Trek with a $150 million+ budget, only for them to downplay expectations of the film's box office performance as release time approaches?

I think Paramount view this incarnation of Trek as a major break with the past. No more lowballing the special effects or production budgets, no more marketing solely to the fans - all factors which helped to limit Star Trek's (especially the TNG movies) box office appeal in the mainstream.

If Star Trek can manage to equal the US box office performance of Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Star Trek IV (that is, sell similar amounts of tickets, albeit at 2009 prices) then it will make far in excess of $200 million domestically, and perhaps as much as $300 million worlwide.

TMP's 1979 domestic gross of $82 million equates to over $250 million in today's money, and that movie was considered to be a financial disappointment. Almost all the Star Trek movies have managed to break the $100 million barrier if you adjust their original box office grosses for inflation, while TMP and STIV manage to top the $200 million mark.

 

[Bad Bishop]

What exactly would be the point of Paramount greenlighting the production of a "reboot" of Star Trek with a $150 million+ budget, only for them to downplay expectations of the film's box office performance as release time approaches?

Is it so hard to understand why Paramount might want to be cautious? They don't want to embarrass themselves. They expect ST to be a success, but they don't know whether they have a $100 million hit, a $200 million hit or better.

When various bloggers were predicting a $120 million opening weekend for The Dark Knight (it turned out much better than that), Warner Bros. brushed it all off and just said that they hoped to do very well. In May 2009 we're going to be hearing all kinds of predictions Star Trek's box office. Paramount will wisely distance themselves from all that while they concentrate on the promotional work.

 

[gastrof]

Answer: No.

Of course, Trek XI will have its boycotters....such as the Roddenberry worshipers, the Shatner fans, NextGen fans who want'd another movie, people who want zero changes, The God Thing, etc, etc. Not that any of these will make much of a difference.

I'm a fan who wanted "zero changes".

I'm going. (Unless they don't show a tribble in the opening scene. If that happens, I'm outta there. )

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I was not worried and fairly certain the new Trek movie would be a huge sucess...until X-FILES-I WANT TO BELIEVE bombed at the box office.

This was a series with a huge Trek like following and with the ORGINAL stars and it still tanked.

Now I'm worried because if the new movie fails it could spell the end of live action STAR TREK for all time and that I do not want to see happen.

I'm not worried about it being a BOMB... but I'd be much happier if the flick was being released at an off-peak time rather than during a "release rush."

You refer to the X-Files movie. That's a great example of why "release rush" timing sucks. If the X-Files movie were released at a time that there wasn't anything else out there which I wanted to see, I've have gone to see it already. As it is, I've got to pick and choose how to spend my limited free time, and honestly, that movie is pretty low on the priority list!

Then again, if it came out in another two months (during a typically bad period for movie releases as far as I'm concerned) there probably wouldn't be ANYTHING out worth seeing besides it... and it would get my business, pretty much guaranteed!

SO... back to the Trek thing... whether or not it's hurt by the release all depends on what else is coming out at approximately the same time. Even if it beats out everything else... it can still be hurt by putting it into direct competition with similar titles. On the other hand, put it out at the same time as a "Mama Mia!" (which may be a fine movie, but which doesn't interest me in the least!) and it won't have to split it's target audience with nearly as much competition.

Still... I suspect that this film will lead the pack at the time it's being released. Whether or not it KEEPS that position will depend greatly on the quality of the final product.

 

[Nedersong]

I don't think it'll bomb, but it won't be very successful.

 

[Chekt]

It's got J.J. Abram's name behind it, so if they make the font of his name on the trailers really, really big, it might get some more people to see it. His name carries power, because he was/is behind Lost, Alias, Cloverfield, and Mission Impossible 3.

 

[Surak]

^ Don't forget he co-wrote the screenplay for Armageddon.

 

[Jack Bauer]

^ Don't forget he co-wrote the screenplay for Armageddon.

Along with a zillion other writers. Armageddon was written by 6 different writers according to IMBD.com.